It has nothing to do with standardization. With science and technology today, it is not possible to work in conditions with measurements and units random, based on parts of the body of a dead king centuries ago and not even, what is more serious, does not differentiate between weight and mass. Besides, it requires complicated conversions, a source of errors. For example of calculating the angular momentum in different parts of a 1.6 mile long bridge, if it has to be calculated with inches. No problem in a Bridge of 2,364 km to use Meters, centimetros or even Milimetros, only have to move the coma, no calculations needed.
The important thing in science is that the units are repeatable and reconstructible, which in degrees Celsius is not a problem, having as a reference the freezing and boiling of water at sea level as a reference. A similar reference for Fahrenheit does not exist, at least not with sufficient accuracy, which is why it was discarded as a unit. You can be sure that the manufacturers that supply Fahrenheit thermometers to the US calibrate them using Celsius or Kelvin, then put the Fahrenheit scale after converting the values.
Apologies, but I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Both Celsius and Fahrenheit are based off the exact same thing: the freezing and boiling points of water. Fahrenheit just gives you more resolution between the two (180 degrees for Fahrenheit vs 100 degrees for Celsius), but otherwise they operate in the same way.
I agree that the underpinnings of the weight and distance measurements used in the Imperial system are silly, but they are still just as accurate as the weight and distance measurements in the metric system. The metric system’s units for weight and distance are more logical and easier to use, but that doesn’t make them more accurate given modern measurement methods.
I think the US should adopt the metric system in general, but I honestly don’t see the point in bringing Celsius along with the rest of the measurement standards.
I honestly see zero benefit to Celsius over Fahrenheit: they are both pegged to the boiling and freezing points of water, Celsius was just unnecessarily limited in the number of degrees between those two points. Beyond that limitation of Celsius, there’s basically zero difference between it and Fahrenheit.
It’s not like that. Fahrenheit is not based on the freezing and boiling point of water, which is used32ºF and 180ºF as a reference, if not, it would result absurdo. No it serves to consider it the same claiming that water freezes at 32ºF because it is known. It does not make it reconstructible, essential in science. You can’t work with randomly obtained values if you use a fixed reference like water, how do you want to determine a zero point without do all kinds of conversions in physical or chemical applications and experiments?
Sure, you can put a thermometer on ice and in boiling water and then put a scale between 32º and 180º instead of between 0º and 100º, to measure in Fahrenheit, but this does not solve the problem of reconstructibility of these units.
Fahrenheit set the 0ºF and the 100ºF on the scale by recording the lowest temperatures he could measure and his own body temperature, by being in a slight state of fever. He took the lowest temperature that was measured in the harsh winter of 1708 to 1709 in his city of Gdansk (Poland), about -17.8 C, as point 0 F, with this we have the same problem as with the other imperial units, they lacks an exact unit for the reconstruction, not better than the pie as unit for the lenght.
Even the Réaumur scale is better, also use 0º for the freeze point of water, but using a octagesimal scale where water boils at 80º instead of 100º in C.
It has nothing to do with standardization. With science and technology today, it is not possible to work in conditions with measurements and units random, based on parts of the body of a dead king centuries ago and not even, what is more serious, does not differentiate between weight and mass. Besides, it requires complicated conversions, a source of errors. For example of calculating the angular momentum in different parts of a 1.6 mile long bridge, if it has to be calculated with inches. No problem in a Bridge of 2,364 km to use Meters, centimetros or even Milimetros, only have to move the coma, no calculations needed. The important thing in science is that the units are repeatable and reconstructible, which in degrees Celsius is not a problem, having as a reference the freezing and boiling of water at sea level as a reference. A similar reference for Fahrenheit does not exist, at least not with sufficient accuracy, which is why it was discarded as a unit. You can be sure that the manufacturers that supply Fahrenheit thermometers to the US calibrate them using Celsius or Kelvin, then put the Fahrenheit scale after converting the values.
Apologies, but I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Both Celsius and Fahrenheit are based off the exact same thing: the freezing and boiling points of water. Fahrenheit just gives you more resolution between the two (180 degrees for Fahrenheit vs 100 degrees for Celsius), but otherwise they operate in the same way.
I agree that the underpinnings of the weight and distance measurements used in the Imperial system are silly, but they are still just as accurate as the weight and distance measurements in the metric system. The metric system’s units for weight and distance are more logical and easier to use, but that doesn’t make them more accurate given modern measurement methods.
I think the US should adopt the metric system in general, but I honestly don’t see the point in bringing Celsius along with the rest of the measurement standards.
I honestly see zero benefit to Celsius over Fahrenheit: they are both pegged to the boiling and freezing points of water, Celsius was just unnecessarily limited in the number of degrees between those two points. Beyond that limitation of Celsius, there’s basically zero difference between it and Fahrenheit.
It’s not like that. Fahrenheit is not based on the freezing and boiling point of water, which is used32ºF and 180ºF as a reference, if not, it would result absurdo. No it serves to consider it the same claiming that water freezes at 32ºF because it is known. It does not make it reconstructible, essential in science. You can’t work with randomly obtained values if you use a fixed reference like water, how do you want to determine a zero point without do all kinds of conversions in physical or chemical applications and experiments? Sure, you can put a thermometer on ice and in boiling water and then put a scale between 32º and 180º instead of between 0º and 100º, to measure in Fahrenheit, but this does not solve the problem of reconstructibility of these units. Fahrenheit set the 0ºF and the 100ºF on the scale by recording the lowest temperatures he could measure and his own body temperature, by being in a slight state of fever. He took the lowest temperature that was measured in the harsh winter of 1708 to 1709 in his city of Gdansk (Poland), about -17.8 C, as point 0 F, with this we have the same problem as with the other imperial units, they lacks an exact unit for the reconstruction, not better than the pie as unit for the lenght. Even the Réaumur scale is better, also use 0º for the freeze point of water, but using a octagesimal scale where water boils at 80º instead of 100º in C.